Recommended Posts

Tom seems to be knowledgable with the possible negative effects these turbines may have, however we need to prove that this negativity is certain. There are turbines right know running along Lake Erie from Hamburg beach to the South Gap and I have ,to my knowledge, not heard any negative problems from either the Charters who work this area or the local fishermen. This does not mean I agree with turbines but if nothing negative is coming from Erie what support do we have in Ontario?

We need to see what problems are coming from Erie.

Shade

Howie,

Those are on shore on the beach, not in the water

Tim

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Yes, they are on the shore and the pay taxes to the local community, not like the Power? Authority. Just wait till they shut down the Tonawanda and Dunkirk Power Plants and hear the local taxpayers scream when their property taxes skyrocket.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

They say that these produce zero CO emissions during operation. What about the production and maintenance? Add to that the unpredictability of the production of actual electricity which then requires a secondary source to be used when production isn't high enough. And the $7 billion tax subsidies that the government has already spend/lost on current generating facilities. It seems that these aren't a viable answer.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All i seem to read about on this issue is scientific speculation as the artical in last post. There are abunch of these things around the world in all different climates. Where is the data & testimony from these and the 'experts who actually run them? when I hea r it will or won't do this or that or it has the " potential' to do this or that my ears go up.Thats what they told me about my 401 K . Where is the hard evidence on this issue? Show me what has gone wrong or right , not what will go wrong or right.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

List below are a few articles regarding wind power. I think if you google the titles they will probably show up. These articles are from various journals. I did not have time to analyze each one, but they bring up a few interesting points about reliability, transmission loss and limitations.

These articles describe some of the pros and cons of wind energy. I am not saying that it is a terrible alternative, I just don't believe that there has been enough research completed on the efficiency of wind farms, and the integration of wind farms into preexisting grids that are as unique as the one we live on. There has already been billions of dollars spent/lost on wind farms and I don't believe that they have been very cost effective.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

NYPA just announced that proposals for windfarms and transmission system(s) must be in by June 1, 2010. Politicians DO NOT know how this will effect the sports fishing industry/tourism and if they do not get this input WELL IN ADVANCE this issue will steam roll through. Shawn understands and is trying to get their attention.

The topic should concern effects on the fish habitat/breeding, and the economy; otherwise it's just static noise to these guys. Shawn gets it, but Turner actually thinks he knows how you guys feel; i.e. not that concerned. Evidently only a few people have contacted him. CRACK THE WHIP NOW or we may not have enough time to stop this.

It is NOT good, and will be disastrous to sports fishing, and in turn tourism. They've found that the most dangerous periods are construction and decommissioning of wind turbines, which raises so much turbidity that oxygen is used up in the water, and particulates kill the base of food chain. The evidence, while not conclusive in studies I looked at, indicates that the electromagnetic forces around cables and etc DRIVE FISH, ESPECIALLY PREDATORS, AWAY.

In effect to put in windfarms for marginal benefits, will require localities to adapt to NO sports fishing industry income, and spending in their localities.

Yes, that is one of the links that started this. Definitely good reading, as it outlines the proposed locations of these turbines and provides pictures of the actual locations they will go. Not good for us!!!!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

From what I have read on wind turbines, they are detrimental to migritory waterfowl and other migratory birds. What about the 1000's of migratory waterfowl that winter on Lake Ontario or stop here on their migration routes?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Is this fact or some internet posting from somr enviromental group about the potential of what can happen?There are more geese than there have ever been in my lifetime. Are there deab birds laying on the ground around the ones already in place? I heard from a freind he saw a study{ dont know how true it is } that a guy who lives around these kept tract for a year of a few & found 4 dead birds. Animals are not stupid & I can't belive that they would go blatantly flying into these things. If it is true then show me the facts & to me it is a valid negative. Hearsay won't do anything . Also at what point is the state in the prosses of looking at this & making a decision & who will make that decsion? Well in headed down to the stream,wish me luck . Hopfully rainbow trout almondine for supper when I watch Tebow.

They look at yearly averages for wind speed and pay no attention to monthly, daily, hourly fluctuations. i.e brownouts. Windmills need steady wind speed to effectively produce power. (Need I post the StatKraft site on windmill deign?) They certainly didnâ€™t look at the wind data from NOAA for the windiest spot on Lake Ontario:

In case you donâ€™t want to look at all that data, hereâ€™s a histogram of 2009 between approx Memorial day & Columbus day. (season with highest electric demand - look at your electric bill)

Whatâ€™s the percentage below 7.5 mâ€™s???? oops, almost forgot the wind is 10-20% stronger at that elevation so guess you can shift that graph just a little, if youâ€™d like. Still many many periods below what they require to get them up to the 25% capacity range. They certainly havenâ€™t been out on Lake Ontario and seen the wind shift in less than 5 minutes nor been in calm water and suddenly experience 4 ft whitecaps before youâ€™ve had enough time to pull your gear.

They certainly havenâ€™t looked at the maps of Lake Ontario that show it lays on the westerly plane, not the SW (The international boundary is, but the lake isnâ€™t) or that Rochester is in a cove that protects the area out to over 100 FOW from the prevailing SW winds. I don't think it necessary to post a map, is it?

They donâ€™t pay any attention to the turbulence created when wind blows over water then land then water again. They havenâ€™t been out there to see the different effects that a 10 mph SW wind has off the Bar vs the Genny vs the Salmon River.

They donâ€™t realize the unpredictable weather that WNY has & can change only on a momentâ€™s notice. (Thatâ€™s why our weathermen have such exciting jobs & use a lot of hair coloring) They ignore upper wind disturbances that our local weathermen talk about nightly. Power Grid operators wonâ€™t have a week to prepare to throw switches. Theyâ€™ll have much much less time. They donâ€™t realize how calm the Bay of Mexico is during a norâ€™easter nor that often times the wind is blowing from the north at the Bar, South off the Genny yet itâ€™s perfectly calm off the eastern Ponds all at the same time. (and they can change very quickly). They never mention anything about power fluctuations within the grid due to wind fluctuations although the lights in Germany & Denmark flicker considerably. (Guess you've never been to Europe) We donâ€™t notice it now as only an extremely small percentage of the grid is generated this way but what happens in NY when we approach 15-20% power generation with this method? They donâ€™t/canâ€™t answer that.

They ignore the fact that the southern shore and the ports where theyâ€™ll have to harbor their service vehicles/boats freeze up during the winter, (Do I need to post a picture of the frozen Genny?) or that access to the windmills is near impossible with waves over 1 meter in the Baltic. They ignore the fact that wave geometry on the great Lakes is much shorter & steeper than it is on the Baltic; hence access will be a greater and more expensive issue than they thought.

They ignore the fact that the US govâ€™t, Canada & the Great Lake states have vowed to restore the Great Lakes to what they once were. They donâ€™t care about the effort & research that has already gone into that. They donâ€™t care about aquatic ecology and say that we have to do studies to show detrimental effects rather than they show any study whatsoever. If a private individual wants to put in a dock or ramp at his lake front property, he has to jump through hoops and a permit process to show it presents no disturbance to nature & his neighbors. Yet they say, â€œtry it youâ€™ll like it;â€ besides â€œitâ€™s green, therefore automatically good for the environment.â€

Windmills themselves have no carbon footprint, except the 400+ gal of oil in each turbine, yet their transmission lines have different effects. They donâ€™t care that lesser life forms like aquatic life are even more affected by electric fields and vibration than mammals. They ignore what the US ARMY Corps of Engineers has done on the Illinois River with electric fields. (Refer to other thread on Asian carp for references) They donâ€™t care that OSHA says thereâ€™s a 27 ft minimum approach distance to a transmission line unless a worker (higher life form) is properly protected (1910.269) They donâ€™t care about efforts that have gone into preserving and restoring lower life form fish species across the US. They donâ€™t care that a fish survives by using its lateral line to pick up the subtle vibration of food. (which is the same seismic vibration as a windmill)

They donâ€™t care that Sportfishing on the Great Lakes has developed into a multi-billion dollar industry that continues to put dollars into communities as industry has moved out. Power companies won't be paying farmers or anyone for property easements so how do they put money into the economy? Hire a few locals for 3 years then lay them off? What about the people that are layed off from existing power companies? Where is the net long term gain in employment? They donâ€™t care that Lake front property is the most valuable residential property in WNY and that localities will probably lose a portion of their property tax base. Guess the state will just add another surcharge on the cost of electricity which is already acknowledged by the proponents to cost 30-40% more when generated by the wind. (Refer to reference in 1st post)

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Looks like someone gets a gold star for doing his homework. Now these are the facts I want to see. All the speculation in the world can't compete with a few hard facts. Do you know the effects that the mills at Lowville have had on the power grid & how much of their potential that was no doubt promised fufilled. We need to know where the state & power co are at in the approval prosses. The looks dont bother me that much but the rest does.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

This is an interesting site. The Ontario Canada wind farm real output data. The wind mill on the front shows current total output for the last hour. If you go over to the right there are spread sheets that show real output since 2006. You have to scroll all the way to the bottom to get recent data. It shows last August was pretty good but September was not.

The way I read the NYSPA RFP is that it is free form wide open request for fesability of putting windfarms on the lake in general. It is up to the submitters to deal with the questions that have been brought up in this fourm. The economic issues like cost/MW will certainly be addressed.

From what I have read most off shore windfarms are in less than 100 feet of water and when you get into deep water wind farms you have a lot of added cost. The advantage for deep water windfarms in the ocean is that you get more consistant wind speeds which make up for some of the cost. Because on lake O deep water is close to shore I think that advantage goes away. The other issue is the operating conditions. Working in winter in open water under ice conditions will add to the cost.

At this point it's just a free form RFP. Next year when and if there are submissions with real locations and numbers will be the time to go pick it apart. Any project on the great lakes is going to have a lot more than fishermen to deal with.

Yet Iberdola site says power for 96,000 homes; emissions for only 45,000 cars; created 400 construction jobs; employs 35 people & that it brought in $55M to the community thru construction. (wonder what those unemployed construction workers are doing now and why the state is revoking the Empire Zone credit for failing to increase employment rolls?)

(Remember a few years ago when the grid operators screwed up & the whole NE grid went down? Surges will happen as the wind picks up; brownouts will occur when it drops & backup isnâ€™t switched properly.)

Turbines safe??? July 4, 2007. Loweville. DEC investigation. What will this spill do to the open water. This spill contaminated someones water supply & the Dec had to provide bottled water to many residents. (scroll down the site for the article)

(Look at the NOAA data for Lake Ontario- our winds shift & change all the time within 10 minute periods)

Yes 50 of the Loweville turbines did not kill more than the average number of birds/bats for turbines: They only checked 50 turbines not the whole 195 and they didnâ€™t count during the spring migrations. They found 125 birds and at 9.2 fatalities per MW, those same 50 killed 2,125 bats.

(Interesting that their mitigation for bat fatalities is to have better lighting on the towers â€“ guess no one told them bats are blind?)

Hereâ€™s the Environmental Impact statement for the Hounsfield windfarm supposed to begin construction on Galloo Island in 2010. (84 turbines) This will be on land but have a new single transmission line go underwater then 50 miles to Mexico NY. They say yes there will be aquatic life (fish) impact, especially during construction due to blasting. Theyâ€™re going to minimize that by blasting only when there are no fish migrations. Guess they wonâ€™t be able to do construction during May-June (alewife spawn) nor mid Aug thru Oct for the Salmon spawn, or Oct thru Dec for the Lake Trout spawn. Only do it when the Ragboats & every other recreational boat is out there; and when the access ports are frozen over.

Thereâ€™s also discussion of re-depositing sediments impact which is kind of strange because itâ€™s all rock up there. From Sandy to Webster, itâ€™s all mud. Natural gyre of Big-O shouldnâ€™t carry the sediments to far up the St. Lawrence.

To answer the question as to how much power they really can produce: the answer is on pg 1-12 in the previous link. 34-35% of the nameplate rating over the course of their 20 year lifespan.

Hereâ€™s one that just too good to not pass on: According to NYS Dept of Labor in June 09, electric bills in Lewis, Jefferson & St Lawrence counties were reduced 10-15% by NYPA, not due to renewable energy sources but because Alcoa shut down smelters & they resold unused electricity to someone else. Lower electric bills as a trade off for jobs-donâ€™t try to sell that news as a positive to the unemployed. (Scroll down to June 2009)

Share on other sites

All your info is well grounded but I think that the investors are a few steps ahead of us.

The Rochester/Ontario ferry comes to mind.

The investors gave themselves huge salaries during the planning and development stages while they gathered loans and took care not to invest any of their own money. As the project advanced past the point of no return all sorts of extra costs appeared out of nowhere, and the politicians who had promoted the projects had their careers to think of,so they coughed up the money(yours and mine).In the end the ferry appeared and failed, leaving the bill behind for you and me.

Renaissance Squire (with $16+ million wasted in planning) and the Rhinos stadium are similar examples.

After having seen all the information that you produced,I can only conclude that these wind mills are doomed to fail just like the other projects,but along the way to their demise some people will get very rich and we will yet again be served with a very hefty bill.Even if these projects never come of the ground, the "investors"will have made a very hefty bundle of money and they will own a few more politicians all of this at our expense

I do support alternative energy,but this project is not about producing energy,it is about some people getting very rich at our expense.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is good that someone on this site has the ability and smarts to do the research on this so the rest of us can see & make a decision on this issue. Quite honestly I really don't care if I see these things or the lake front property owners have to either. If they are 1 + - miles off shore I don't think lake front property will be selling at a reduced rate, it will still be desirable. If I have to fish around a few I would not care either but If it will be a catastrophy in waiting I say no way. Maybe someone can start an on line poll to see howguys on this site feel . How do the local & state reps feel about this? At what point is the decision for go ahead at? I asked guys on the creek the last 2 days about this & 2 out of 4 heard little or nothing. Got to get the word out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is good that someone on this site has the ability and smarts to do the research on this so the rest of us can see & make a decision on this issue. Quite honestly I really don't care if I see these things or the lake front property owners have to either. If they are 1 + - miles off shore I don't think lake front property will be selling at a reduced rate, it will still be desirable. If I have to fish around a few I would not care either but If it will be a catastrophy in waiting I say no way. Maybe someone can start an on line poll to see howguys on this site feel . How do the local & state reps feel about this? At what point is the decision for go ahead at? I asked guys on the creek the last 2 days about this & 2 out of 4 heard little or nothing. Got to get the word out.

There are quite a few local and state representatives involved right now. Jefferson County is establishing a plan to reject this project, should it ever come up for the approval to go ahead. Oswego County has quite a few involved and none of them are for the turbines, either. The County is requesting everyone submit their concerns and questions to them for review, so they have some hard proof there is a strong backing to reject the project when the time comes. They are requesting all input be sent to them, either by mail or Email, ASAP so they have time to plan. I believe I read somewhere June 1, 2010 is the deadline for the Counties to voice their opinions. Given that, they need our input ASAP. As of Friday morning, they have heard from a large number of citizens, but very little from the fishermen. Could be because the season is over on the lake and those who fish it aren't around anymore. Somehow all of these propositions come around when there isn't anyone around to oppose it or give negative feedback (ie. winter months). You are correct that we need to get the word out. Regardless if you are for or against it, the public has a right to know these things are happening, and not have decisions being made behind our backs the way so many politicians do. The emails I have received do have some familiar names of charter captains and fishermen I know on the lake in the "send to" list, so the word is getting out, but we need to get it out there and fast!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Although it is a good idea to get the word out that someting is coming, until there are proposals on the table there is little to do but wait and see what they are. There may be no legitamate proposals for certain areas of the lake.

Although it is a good idea to get the word out that someting is coming, until there are proposals on the table there is little to do but wait and see what they are. There may be no legitamate proposals for certain areas of the lake.

While very true that until the actual proposals are released no real action can be taken, however, the problem here is this whole project was originally supposed to be hush-hush, but word of the meeting in Oswego leaked out and now it's out there as public knowledge. From what I have heard and been told, the NYPA is supposed to start accepting proposals for this project soon. The county & state representatives need time to prepare their rejections prior to then, and need the public's input so they have time to gather everything they need to battle this.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

With climate change taking place the worldâ€™s supply of freshwater is becoming a more and more valuable resource every day. (Copehagen climate meeting12/7/09) The Great Lakes represent approx 95% of the surface fresh water supply of North America and many states have, in the last few years, won lawsuits prohibiting other regions from the water (Wisc,, Mich, etc) trying to protect it.

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Matthew 7:26

The NYPA didnâ€™t bother to look at the USGS nautical charts for the Rochester Embayment,

which is one of the areas where they are accepting proposals for a major wind farm. (Refer to previous post with map)

The Rochester Embayment is all sand & mud from Bogus point (Braddockâ€™s) to Pultneyville. Fishermen & boaters from all along this area can attest to this, as well as to the vast area that turns brown with sediment when the Genny area gets just a little rain.

Off shore windmills in this area will need much more extensive bases & foundation super-structures than on land not only because theyâ€™re water installations but because theyâ€™ll be built on mud & sediment that has accumulated over 1000â€™s of years. Installers will have to do some serious construction and much more excavation than theyâ€™ve ever done with land based units just to get down to the solid structure that will be required to support these mills that are much larger than their land based cousins.

They obviously donâ€™t realize that the U.S. EPA has classified the Rochester Embayment area as an Area of Concern (AOC) due to the sediments containing very high amounts of heavy metal & Phosphorus from the last couple hundred years of pollution in the area.

(I find it interesting that only â€œrunoffâ€ dredging can be done in the area.)

Heavy metal pollution does not come from organic decay. It historically comes from industry that did metal working operations and where spills or waste could flow into the tributaries, such as the Genny which is the largest sole US tributary on Lake Ontario. Many manufacturers are now gone but their legacy remains in the sediments of the lake.

Interestingly, in the first 10-15 years of baitfish surveys, the DEC trawls off Rochester (33-500 FOW) often snagged WWII armaments. Rochester probably saved the free world with production of the proximity fuse and optics for the war effort. Unfortunately glass required arsenic and finished proximity fuses contained mercury switches. The DECâ€™s find was such a â€œcuriosityâ€ to the govâ€™t that the USGS did sonar scans of the area and concluded that although there was no evidence of a large cache, fuses were scattered over a large area and under layers of sediment and mussel infestations.

They speculated that the fuses were put out there â€œprobably to prevent them from reaching enemy hands;â€ (1st para - Intro section) that there are no early production records or records of disposal practices; and that the area sampled was pretty small. This indicates there could be many many more out there.

More recently we know of the high concentrations of bacteria & algae that grow in the area and frequently pollute our public beaches. In addition, the lake floor, from shore to well past the proposed windmill range is now covered with Zebra & Quagga mussels. (Which, by the way, came to us as a result of another project backed by the Power Authority.) Mussels are eaten by another bottom dweller known as Gobies. Gobies, in turn are eaten by birds that have experienced major die offs due type E Botulism from their diet of these invasives.

There is a general eastward current (gyre) in Lake Ontario. Some sediment studied in the Hounsfield wind farm project for Galloo Island have been identified as originating from the Genny. (refer to EIS link in previous post)

Fortunately direct pollution of tributaries has been dramatically reduced in the last decade. The waters of Lake Ontario are getting cleaner in many respects. Cleaner sediment from the last few years is beginning to cover and bury the heavily polluted sediment from years ago.

Unfortunately, vast construction projects that these windmill bases will require, will dig into the polluted layers and pollution will be redistributed via the natural gyre of Lake Ontario to pollute all along the South shore and into the Thousand Island area.

But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. Matthew 7:26

Tom B.

(LongLine)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

That alone which you said, Tom, about the disturbance of the sediments causing the displacement and redistribution of pollutants is scary enough and the biggest reason to reject this proposal. I have wondered, as you say, the superstructures of these mills needs to be substantial enough to stand in these shifting sediments, what would happen when they encounter a direct hit from a rogue water spout twisting at more than 100MPH. Water spouts are very common out in that range,....just a thought.

Mark

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I am quite sure the elbow rubbing & back scratching is in full form as we speak . All of what Longline said may be true but the most important factor I see off what I have read thanks to him is that they don't work as promised. That alone is enough for me. And with what went down in Copenhagen , the timing of this sounds a little to coinsidental. Coal will be a thing of the past & the alternatives will only be a few with wind being one of them. We are being set up like bowling pins from what I see. Let the reps know now.